The public school bathroom has become the battleground between supporters of transgender rights and those who advocate privacy and federal ruling over a blanket nationwide law that flexes its muscles through federal funding. The South Dakotan Legislature recently passed a law, 20-15, that says transgender students must use public school toilets that are aligned in accordance with their birth gender and chromosomes. Transgender rights supporters are now lobbying that Governor Dennis Daugarrd to veto the bill.
Black HIlls Fox gives an insight into the position of those who support the bill which has come under fire because it goes against Title X, the federal law banning discrimination against any person in using federal-funded activities and facilities on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. South Dakota Representative Thomas Brunner says that most of his constitutents, raised by "traditional values," prefer that boys and girls use their designated bathrooms. At the same time, he lauds the law for its clause allowing accommodations for transgenders seeking their own safe place in state-run facilities. An example of an accommodation is the creation of a bathroom especially designated for transgenders.
The Nebraska Net reports that 22 other states have taken a similar position to that of the South Dakotan Legislature when it comes to transgenders and public school toilets. The so-called defiance of the statehouse against Title X is beginning to clear distinct battle lines. The legislators of the concerned states challenge that the federal law has intruded into state law; at the same time, the schools in these states are apprehensive that their state funding could be cut if they do not comply with Title X.
The Human Rights Campaign have identified 44 anti-transgender bills being proposed in more than 22 states. About 23 of these bills focus on transgender students, prohibing them from using toilets and locker rooms aligned with their choice of gender. Gay rights supporters have said that they will file a lawsuit to overturn the South Dakota bill if Daugaard does not veto it.
